Friday, October 5, 2012

Political Demagogue III: Autopsy of the First Presidential Debate for 2012

Keywords or Terms:  Presidential Debate; Medicare; Medicaid; Taxation; Uncommon Pronouncements; Big Bird; Apprehension; Trust; Mixed Messages; Mitt Romney; Strategic Ploy; Board Room Strategy; Barack Obama; NPR; and, America

You have heard what the pundits had to say about the first 2012 Presidential debate. You have seen the melt down on the part of some liberal press personalities regarding the failure of the President to horn his debate skills and tool kit or take advantage of the miracle of his oratory. You have witnessed the celebration of the right, regarding their candidate’s debate vanquish. You have also heard the relief from the Republican flag bearer’s supporters regarding the uncommon survival of their candidate after what was tantamount to a calamitous month of campaigning. In what is now assessed as a very unusual step or strategy to change message thirty-eight days to the actual election date, the nation experienced what will now go down in history as, one of the most difficult mixed messages from a politician and probably the worst confusion as to where the politician Mitt Romney truly stands; or better still, an appreciation of why no one must take the words out of a politician’s mouth seriously, especially when the politician is bent on winning at all cost the highest office in the land.

The difficult realization that the Republican flag bearer can deny close to virtually all his position prior to the first Presidential debate was to say the least, rather disarming for any unassuming and articulate person who had his ears close to how either candidate from both major political parties in America had been campaigning for the White House oval. What happened on Wednesday was tantamount to what many business students or persons will tell you, is replicate to a boardroom coup; or, a strategic ploy to undermine the strength of President Obama’s campaign edge before the debate. The strategy of the Republican Party’s candidate’s denials and re-arrangement of points of position, in a flip of a second or 90 minute, is one that many board room executives or commissioners of boards all over America have witnessed one time or the other over their career; and, will gladly tell you is not uncommon. Business men who turn politicians have the innate tendency to revert to their tool kit or adopt the usual cut-throat strategy to undermine the competition; even if their moral position is questionable. The usual thing for businessmen-politician like this is to get ahead of the competitor or competition, no matter the cost.

In fact, many business executives will gladly say, it is expected behavior in any business environment where each player is jettisoning for a position, be it that of the Board’s President or his vice. Could this same behavior or strategy be adaptable to Presidential politics and campaigns? From what we all know now, it depends on who you are talking or dealing with! This is probably why the liberal press must stop blaming the befuddled President Obama in an unfolding drama of denials and re-arrangement of position, ever touted by a Presidential Candidate in the history of Presidential campaigns. For one moment, all Americans saw again on television, the cut throat dishonesty that goes on in many fortune 500 companies’ executive board room; a few were thrilled, and many were completely mesmerized. The novice voter saw Romney’s performance as creditable and a good case for his Presidential ambition, others saw it as a stepping stone for Romney to be at par with the President of the United States; or, a great justification for the Republican bandwagon to come back to the White House and continue with their deregulation activities and abandonment of rational principle of taxation policy that got America into the mess we are in. For a reminder, this is the same mess that Barack Obama has been trying to clear in the past few years and he is being chastised for, for not being fast enough!

To the astute mind, the coming of a change in position, just when everyone in town knew Romney had to do something, before his campaign’s tail spin becomes a disaster, knew better and saw the wild side of a ruthless business executive, who is ready to throw the baby and the bath tub away, if that will make him win the election. In response to Romney’s repositioning, those who were taken aback, including President Obama, should take heart. Romney’s performance at the first 2012 Presidential debate is a board room gamesmanship that he had probably perfected before getting on the campaign trail; and a ploy, that he had pulled in several business deals. A leopard hardly changes his spots!

Romney’s Etch-A-Sketch repositioning and confrontational assault even against the lovable and amiable big bird, is a strategic strength better attuned to the business world or board room campaigning for top business executive position, hardly one suitable in a national election, where trust of one’s position and utterances are given; or the prior words from the prime candidate of a major political party, is taken as the gospel truth, or as the real position on which the candidate stands regarding his campaign for the office. It is a boardroom strategy often used to offset the balance of power among the big players in the business world. The fear that Romney’s chances at the Presidency was going to be endangered by the Mother Jones secretly taped voice of him lambasting 47% of Americas as mocha, was too much and the team wasn’t going to stand back and see their ambition rolled back. The campaign team and their head, Mitt Romney, failure to garner enough support among the plurality of voters was becoming a thing of concern; especially when many of the seniors were growing concerned about the pronouncement of the candidate regarding what he is about to do to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; and what was going to be the likely outcome for seniors, children, women, the handicapped and those on social security. To win those group over, Romney resorted to the boardroom strategy of denying anything he had said in the past regarding his position on the campaign for the White House.

Just before the Presidential debate, voters, including the somewhat 67 million Americans who were said to have watched it, thought or assumed, the debate would enable them to clarify the position of either party’s flag bearer regarding their campaign message of close to one year. For some of the voters, the debate was going to: 1) increasingly make them mindful of each candidate’s position on several issues of concern to their lives; 2) decrease or increase their support for the ambition of either candidate for the White House oval office; and or, 3) allow them to quit sitting on the fence regarding who to cast their votes for on November 6, 2012. Many were looking forward to the candidates' asserting or re-asserting their past messages; some of which were already in repeated speeches at rallies, surrogates’ pronouncements and advertisements.  But boy or girl, were they surprised? Romney showed then what an Etch-a-sketch campaign is all about!

The liberal left was looking forward to Obama re-asserting he wants to grow the economy from inside out, cut taxes to the middle and poor classes and grow the economy in ways that there is an equitable distribution of opportunities for everyone to grow within his or her potential. The extreme right was looking for a more conservative Mitt Romney, re-affirming the concept of a lean federal government, where taxes are cut to the bones, where social welfare programs are relegated to oblivion, and where everyone, the strong and weak alike, are left to fend for themselves, with taxation benefits skewed very heavily towards the rich. The unions that mostly represented the millions of middle and lower income earners were routing for Obama. The Wall Street Corporations, which had contributed millions to Romney’s campaign, were looking forward to harvesting riches from their investment in the Mormon bishop’s ambition for the White house. While Obama was attempting to appeal to the sense of good judgment and fairness of the American voters, Romney was out to partially say there are some great ideas in ‘Obamacare’ and Dodd Franks, laws that were passed to either correct for the run-away hyperinflation that were scuttling delivery of better healthcare service or correct for the excesses of the Republican White House Administration under George W. Bush; but, he was going to strike down these laws to please his corporate donors and constituency. These are the choices before the American Voters!

Romney saw an opportunity to repeat uncorrelated facts, insisting that Obama had taken out 716 billion dollars from Medicare; a fact many right-headed health policy gurus dispute; as they insist it is an effort to correct for over-pricing of health care delivery and an opportunity to cut cost in America’s health care insurance services. Frankly, this amount is actually savings from the trimming of annual increases in insurance premiums, hospital reimbursement rates, and payments to home health care workers. The culpable confusion of Mitt Romney’s re-arrangement of facts or actual lies and the zeal of his repetitious pronouncements in the debate with Obama, made it seem Romney was making credible allegations; however, truth is constant. The same amount of 716 billion to a penny, said to have been taken out of Medicare by Obama, was the same amount Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s Vice President, had allocated to defray the huge hole that is impending in the budget, from a proposed tax cut for Americans; where the rich are going to take a huge chunk of benefit and money. The Republican ticket has just not been truthful enough to explain this arrangement plan; or, have not just found it important to explain to Americans what they have in store for them. Rather, the ticket has chosen to be devious choosing to say, the explanation of the plan will be time consuming; thus, voters must wait until after the election!

From the perspective of the Republican flag bearer, a mother carrying a baby out of an unfortunate event of rape, must carry the baby to term. Currently, if a female is raped out of incest or otherwise, she has recourse through a first trimester abortion. Republican Party’s Vice Presidential mindless campaign promise, which has been adopted by Mitt Romney, the top ticket, indicate that the possibility of the status–quo remaining, if the Republican ticket wins, is very uncertain or dicey. It maybe for example, that the Republican ticket has a grander plan for American women, elderly, poor and middle income earners; to relegate them and their welfare completely to irrelevance. If so, the worst these groups saw at that debate, is the huge disappointment in President Barack Obama not calling Governor Mitt Romney out, every time he made those unsubstantiated claims and denials? A very important and essential thing for these groups to do at this time is to stand up and vote either of the candidate out, choosing to take down the one that truly and hardly represent their interest and position. A seemingly lack of attention to all the unsubstantiated information and downright denials of Mitt Romney, of all the plans in the works of the Republican ticket, or Romney’s grand standing on Wednesday night, can easily be put to rest, by all these groups. Differential interests and positions with a party’s flag bearer on issues of vital concern, especially on voters’ personal welfare and those of their elderly parents, are easily redeemable through the exercise of the voting right come November 6, 2012!

In our culture, where truth and certainty are expected of our leadership, the unusual denial and re-arrangement of facts by Mitt Romney carry with it the element of distrust, mixed messages and treacherousness. For example, the hard working White man in the suburb, who has been advertised as loosing position in the hierarchy of American economy taxonomy, is welcomed to make a choice between Obama and Romney. Finding it hard to survive in a tough economy brought on everyone by reckless Republican Administrations for tax cuts and unpaid foreign wars, are genuine reasons to vote one’s interests. It may simply mean voting against President Obama; however, knowing what the whole country knows at this moment regarding Mitt Romney’s campaign for the White House, voting against Barack Obama is voting against the truth and one's personal interest. Voting against Obama is voting against forthrightness, honestly and humility. Voting for anyone, who is ready to change his position in a twinkle of an eye, is a recipe for disaster in a very challenging campaign and world, where many of our enemies are readily looking out for our weak points to run us over. Voting for Mitt Romney, is voting for a dishonest Mormon Bishop who will do anything at all cost to attain the Presidency of the United States and by default, leader of the Free World. The same mindlessness approach with which Romney conducted himself at the first 2012 Presidential debate is surely going to be the way he will ruthlessly deal with American elderly, women, children, the poor and disadvantaged. One has heard this in his comments on militarization of America and probably the handling of the insistent fights between the Israelis and Palestinians!

Realistically, beneath all advancements from both major parties’ flag bearers in the first 2012 Presidential debate in Denver, Colorado, is the truth, the uncanny truth. Politics is a game of chance and those who cast their last lot on any candidate will likely be disappointed or admonished. To rely solely on the outcome of a 90 minute debate on issues that under normal circumstances would take at least a day to discuss and some days, to digest, is ludicrous. I am obviously in the minority, an observer who is keener on the truth, whatever it takes, when it comes to a political party’s candidate’s campaign message and his or her position during a debate that last less than two hours.  I have lived long enough to know what I want. I have lived long and mixed with different types of people and perspectives, to know what a man who would lie to you in the day and change his story at night, is all about. 

The idea that the power of the Presidency of the United States, and by default the free world, may be handed to a man who can ruthlessly fire people, change positions in a twinkle of an eye and rail road the future of many of the weak and disadvantaged members of society to oblivion, is rather disconcerting.  Whatever flavors your political leaning maybe, whatever God you may pray to, or whatever ideology you are deeply entrenched, no one must allow himself or herself to be hoodwinked by an Etch-A-Sketch politician. No American must allow himself or herself to doubt what he is hearing from the mixed messages coming out of a man considered a Mormon Bishop, whose main goal is to undermine trust in anything; whose ambition is to toy with those important issues of welfare, taxation and quality of life for our elderly, children and women; a man who will do anything to win the Presidency, just because his wife says: Stop it, it is Mitts turn!

P.S. Today, the blog has taken a post-Morten look on the issue of honesty in communication and leadership, especially on what transpired between the two politicians seeking our vote for their White House ambition. I welcome comments, disagreement and apprehension about my position. The 2012 election is just too important to be left to be discussed by just two individual among over 360 million Americans!
Post a Comment